REVIEW 6 cited by
Estimate-Then-Optimize versus Integrated-Estimation-Optimization versus Sample Average Approximation: A Stochastic Dominance Perspective
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Estimate-Then-Optimize versus Integrated-Estimation-Optimization versus Sample Average Approximation: A Stochastic Dominance Perspective
read the original abstract
In data-driven stochastic optimization, model parameters of the underlying distribution need to be estimated from data in addition to the optimization task. Recent literature considers integrating the estimation and optimization processes by selecting model parameters that lead to the best empirical objective performance. This integrated approach, which we call integrated-estimation-optimization (IEO), can be readily shown to outperform simple estimate-then-optimize (ETO) when the model is misspecified. In this paper, we show that a reverse behavior appears when the model class is well-specified and there is sufficient data. Specifically, for a general class of nonlinear stochastic optimization problems, we show that simple ETO outperforms IEO asymptotically when the model class covers the ground truth, in the strong sense of stochastic dominance of the regret. Namely, the entire distribution of the regret, not only its mean or other moments, is always better for ETO compared to IEO. Our results also apply to constrained, contextual optimization problems where the decision depends on observed features. Whenever applicable, we also demonstrate how standard sample average approximation (SAA) performs the worst when the model class is well-specified in terms of regret, and best when it is misspecified. Finally, we provide experimental results to support our theoretical comparisons and illustrate when our insights hold in finite-sample regimes and under various degrees of misspecification.
Forward citations
Cited by 6 Pith papers
-
A Solver-Free Training Method for Predict-then-Optimize
Introduces a measure-transformation-based surrogate loss for solver-free training in predict-then-optimize problems, with Fisher consistency and excess risk bounds.
-
Conformal Risk-Averse Decision Making with Action Conditional Guarantee
Action-conditional conformal prediction sets provide per-action safety guarantees for risk-averse policies that optimize conditional value-at-risk through pinball-loss minimization.
-
Risk-Controlled Post-Processing of Decision Policies
Risk-controlled post-processing yields a threshold-structured policy that follows the baseline except where an oracle fallback sharply reduces conditional violation risk, achieving O(log n/n) expected excess risk in i...
-
Scaling Decision-Focused Learning to Large Problems with Lagrangian Decomposition
Lagrangian decomposition yields a scalable surrogate objective and losses for decision-focused learning that outperforms prior DFL methods on large multi-dimensional knapsack and quadratic portfolio instances.
-
Risk-averse Decision Making with Contextual Information: Model, Sample Average Approximation, and Kernelization
Establishes equivalence conditions between nested and joint risk assessments in contextual optimization, shows policy independence from contextual risk measure under conditions, and proves SAA consistency in RKHS.
-
Decision-Focused Learning: When and Why Traditional Prediction Models Fail
A tutorial reviewing why traditional prediction models often fail to improve decision quality in stochastic optimization and summarizing key properties and tools of decision-focused learning.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.